Skip to main content
Log in

Thinking about biology. Modular constraints on categorization and reasoning in the everyday life of Americans, Maya, and scientists

Mind & Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay explores the universal cognitive bases of biological taxonomy and taxonomic inference using cross-cultural experimental work with urbanized Americans and forest-dwelling Maya Indians. A universal, essentialist appreciation of generic species appears as the causal foundation for the taxonomic arrangement of biodiversity, and for inference about the distribution of causally-related properties that underlie biodiversity. Universal folkbiological taxonomy is domain-specific: its structure does not spontaneously or invariably arise in other cognitive domains, like substances, artifacts or persons. It is plausibly an innately-determined evolutionary adaptation to relevant and recurrent aspects of ancestral hominid environments, such as the need to recognize, locate, react to, and profit from many ambient species. Folkbiological concepts are special players in cultural evolution, whose native stability attaches to more variable and difficult-to-learn representational forms, thus enhancing the latter's prospects for regularity and recurrence in transmission within and across cultures. This includes knowledge that cumulatively enriches (folk expertise), overrides (religious belief) or otherwise transcends (science) the commonsense ontology prescribed by folkbiology. Finally, the studies summarized here indicate that results gathered from “standard populations” in regard to biological categorization and reasoning more often than not fail to generalize in straightforward ways to humanity at large. This suggests the need for much more serious attention to cross-cultural research on basic cognitive processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AHG/APESA (1992)Plan de desarollo integrado de Petén: Inventario forestal, Convenio Gobiernos Alemania y Guatemala, Santa Elena, Petén (SEGEPLAN).

  • Atran, S. (1990)Cognitive foundations of natural history: Towards an anthropology of science (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S. (1998) Folkbiology and the anthropology of science,Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, pp. 547–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S. (1999) Itzaj Maya folk-biological taxonomy, in D. Medin & S. Atran (Eds),Folk biology (Cambridge MA, The mit Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S. (2001) The case for modularity: Sin or Salvation?,Evolution and Cognition, 7, pp. 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S. (2002)In gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion (New York, Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S., Estin, P., Coley, J. & Medin, D. (1997) Generic species and basic levels: Essence and appearance in folk biology,Journal of Ethnobiology, 17, pp. 22–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S., Medin, D., Ross, N., Lynch, E., Coley, J., Ucan Ek', E. & Vapnarsky, V. (1999) Folkecology and commons management in the Maya Lowlands,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 96, pp. 7598–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S., Medin, D., Lynch, E., Vapnarsky, V., Ucan Ek', E. & Sousa, P. (2001) Folkbiology doesn't come from folkpsychology: Evidence from Yukatek Maya in cross-cultural perspective,Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1, pp. 3–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S., Medin, D., Ross, N., Lynch, E., Vapnarsky, V., Ucan Ek', E., Coley, J., Timura, C. & Baran, M. (2002) Folk ecology, cultural epidemiology, and the spirit of the commons. A garden experiment in the Maya Lowlands, 1991–2001,Current Anthropology, 43, pp. 421–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailenson, J., Shum, M., Atran, S., Medin, D. & Coley, J. (2002) A bird's eye view: Biological categorization and reasoning within and across cultures,Cognition, 84, pp. 1–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. (1985) Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure of categories,Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, pp. 629–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, H. (1940) History of the generic concept in botany,Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 47, pp. 319–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, B. (1992)Ethnobiological classification (Princeton, Princeton University).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. & Raven, P. (1973) General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology,American Anthropologist, 74, pp. 214–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, M., Solomon, G. & Carey, S. (2001) An understanding of what is passed on from parents to children: A cross-cultural investigation,Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1, pp. 43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, W. (1973) Philosophical foundations of classical evolutionary taxonomy,Systematic Zoology, 22, pp. 275–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boster, J. (1988) Natural sources of internal category structure: Typicality, familiarity, and similarity of birds,Memory & Cognition, 16, pp. 258–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. (1984)Language and living things: Uniformities in folk classification and naming (New Brunswick NJ, Rutgers University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. & Boysen, S. (2000) Spontaneous discrimination of natural stimuli by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes),Journal of Comparative Psychology, 114, pp. 392–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer, R. (1974) Folk biology in the New Guinea Highlands,Social Science Information, 13, pp. 9–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1985)Conceptual change in childhood (Cambridge MA, The mit Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1996) Cognitive domains as modes of thought, in D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds),Modes of thought (New York, Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerella, J. (1979) Visual classes and natural categories in the pigeon,Journal of Experimental Psychology Human perception and performance, 5, pp. 68–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coley, J., Medin, D. & Atran, S. (1997) Does rank have its privilege? Inductive inferences in folkbiological taxonomies,Cognition, 63, pp. 73–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coley, J., Medin, D., Lynch, E., Proffitt, J. & Atran, S. (1999) Inductive reasoning in folk-biological thought, in D. Medin & S. Atran (Eds),Folk biology (Cambridge MA, The mit Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1859)On the origins of species by means of natural selection (London, Murray).

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1883 [1872])On the origins of species by means of natural selection, 6th ed. (New York, Appleton).

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J. & Bishop, D. (1999) Ethno-ornithology of the Ketengban people, Indonesian New Guinea, in D. Medin & S. Atran (Eds),Folk biology (Cambridge MA, The mit Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Diver, C. (1940) The problem of closely related species living in the same area, in J. Huxley (Ed.),The new systematics (Oxford, Clarendon Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, J. (1979) Learning names for plants and plants for names,Anthropological Linguistics, 21, pp. 298–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N. (1986) Information, economics, and evolution,Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 17, pp. 351–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, R. (1993)The cultural relations of classification (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1983)Modularity of mind (Cambridge MA, The mit Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, Jerry (2000)The Mind Doesn't Work That Way: The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology (Cambridge, MA, The mit Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. & Wellman, H. (1991) Insides and essences,Cognition, 38, pp. 214–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. (1981) Categories, life, and thinking,Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, pp. 269–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-White, F. (2001) Are ethnic groups biological “species” to the brain?Current Anthropology, 42, pp. 515–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P. (2002) What is innateness?The Monist, 85, pp. 70–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (1999) A developmental perspective on informal biology, in D. Medin & S. Atran (Eds),Folk biology (Cambridge MA, The mit Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, M. (2000)Wild minds: What animals really think (New York, Henry Holt).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays, T. (1983) Ndumba folkbiology and general principles of ethnobotanical classification and nomenclature,American Anthropologist, 85, pp. 592–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. (1984) Objects, categories, and discriminative stimuli, in H. Roitblat (Ed.),Animal cognition (Hillsdale NJ, Erlbaum).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickling, A. & Gelman, S. (1995) How does your garden grow? Evidence of an early conception of plants as biological kinds,Child Development, 66, pp. 856–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschfeld, L. (1996)Race in the making (Cambridge MA, The mit Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunn, E. (1976) Toward a perceptual model of folk biological classification,American Ethnologist, 3, pp. 508–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunn, E. (1977)Tzeltal folk zoology (New York, Academic Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunn, E. (1982) The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification,American Anthropologist, 84, pp. 830–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki, K. (1990) The effects of raising animals on children's biological knowledge,British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, pp. 119–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki, K. & Hatano, G. (1991) Constrained person analogy in young children's biological inference,Cognitive development, 6, pp. 219–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. & Mervis, C. (1997) Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization,Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, pp. 248–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K., Mervis, C. & Boster, J. (1992) Developmental changes within the structure of the mammal domain,Developmental Psychology, 28, pp. 74–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. & Solomon, G. (1997) Why dogs have puppies and cats have kittens: The role of birth in young children's understanding of biological origins,Child Development, 68, pp. 404–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. (1995) The growth of causal understandings of natural kinds, in D. Sperber, D. Premack & A. Premack (Eds),Causal Cognition (Oxford, Clarendon).

    Google Scholar 

  • López, A., Atran, S., Coley, J., Medin, D. & Smith, E. (1997) The tree of life: Universals of folk-biological taxonomies and inductions,Cognitive Psychology, 32, pp. 251–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K. (1966) The role of gestalt perception in animal and human behavior, in L. White (Ed.),Aspects of form (Bloomington, Indiana University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, E., Coley, J.D. & Medin, D.L. (2000) Tall is typical: Central tendency, ideal dimensions and graded category structure among tree experts and novices,Memory & Cognition, 28, pp. 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D., Lynch, E., Coley, J. & Atran, S. (1997) Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome?Cognitive Psychology, 32, pp. 49–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D., Ross, N., Atran, S., Burnett, R. & Blok, S. (2002) Categorization and reasoning in relation to culture and expertise, in B. Ross (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, vol. 41 (New York, Academic Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Osherson, D., Smith, E., Wilkie, O., López, A. & Shafir, E. (1990) Category-based induction,Psychological Review, 97, pp. 85–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proffitt, J., Medin, D. & Coley, J. (2000) Expertise and Category-Based Induction,Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, pp. 811–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1975) Universals and cultural specifics in categorization, in R. Brislin, S. Bochner & W. Lonner (Eds),Cross-cultural perspectives on learning (New York, Halstead).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. (1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories,Cognitive Psychology, 7, pp. 573–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Grey, W., Johnson, D. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976) Basic objects in natural categories,Cognitive Psychology, 8, pp. 382–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, N., Medin, D., Coley, J. & Atran, S. (2003) Cultural and experiential differences in the development of folkbiological induction,Cognitive Development, 18, pp. 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. & Medin, D. (1981)Concepts and categories (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa, P., Atran, S. & Medin, D. (2002) Folkbiological essentialism: Further evidence from Brazil,Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2, pp. 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. (1996)Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach (Oxford, Blackwell).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1996)Relevance, 2nd ed. (Oxford, Blackwell).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. (2001) In defence of massive modularity, paper presented to theInnateness and Structure of the Mind Workshop, University of Sheffield, November 2001.

  • Stross, B. (1973) Acquisition of botanical terminology by Tzeltal children, in M. Edmonson (Ed.),Meaning in Mayan languages (The Hague, Mouton).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, J.M. & Taylor, M. (1991) Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder?Cognitive Psychology, 23, pp. 457–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, A. (1901 [1889])Darwinism, 3rd ed. (London, Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Warburton, F. (1967) The purposes of classification,Systematic Zoology, 16, pp. 241–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, P., Medin, D. & Pankratz, C. (1999) Evolution and devolution of folkbiological knowledge,Cognition, 73, pp. 177–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zubin, D. & Köpcke, K.-M. (1986) Gender and folk taxonomy, in C. Craig (Ed.),Noun classes and categorization (Amsterdam, John Benjamins).

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, C. (1959) Canalisation of development and the inheritance of acquired characteristics,Nature, 183, pp. 1654–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott Atran.

Additional information

Before June 10, 2004: Scott Atran, Institute for Social research, P.O. Box 1248, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248After June 10, 2004: Scott Atran, CNRS, 9 Rampe de l'Observatoire, 66660 Port Vendres, France

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Atran, S., Medin, D.I. & Ross, N. Thinking about biology. Modular constraints on categorization and reasoning in the everyday life of Americans, Maya, and scientists. Mind & Society 3, 31–63 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02513147

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02513147

Keywords

Navigation